tv Up W Chris Hayes MSNBC February 2, 2013 5:00am-7:00am PST
living with moderate to semeans living with pain.is it could also mean living with joint damage. humira, adalimumab, can help treat more than just the pain. for many adults, humira is clinically proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred. before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores.
you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your rheumatologist about humira, to help relieve your pain and stop further joint damage. all stations come over to mithis is for real this time. step seven point two one two. verify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. good morning from new york. i'm chris hayes. a new report from the veterans administration says that about
22 veterans committed suicide every day in 2010. a 10% increase since 1999. the country's overall suicide rate went up 31% in the same time period. new york mayor michael bloomberg and the israeli councsel genera will speak at the public service for former new york mayor ed koch, who died last week. joining me is arturo carmona of a national online latino organization. and director of advocacy and policy of united we dream network and co-founder of connecticut students for a dream. and congressman steven horsford, democrat from nevada, welcome. in a bipartisan news conference this week, a group of eight senators offered a framework for comprehensive immigration reform legislation. there are several parts to the proposal. number one, create a pathway to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here contingent on strengthening the nation's borders. number two, reform the legal immigration system. number three, create an effective employment verification system. and number four, establish a better process for admitting future workers into the u.s. the four democratic and four republican senators wish to get momentum from the call for immigration reform. they're similar to the principles laid out by the president in the campaign last year. but it highlights deep conflicts between the parties as the specifics of the policy are hashed out. to his part, the president sounded amenable to compromise. >> we've been debating this for a very long time. it's not as if we don't know technically what needs to get done. there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. but it's important for us to
recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. >> the operative word there was details because, despite all the headlines of a bipartisan group of senators ripe for comprehensive impression reform, it will come down to the details of the proposal, details that matter a tremendous amount to many people, and it's the details that could prove the legislation's undoing. i want to talk about the details because the broad talk is about the principles and the four pillars, and they match the senate and the white house. the first part is what we mean by the path to citizenship. here's my very cynical view of this. i would like you to disabuse me, tell me i'm overly cynical. you're the republican party. you're hemorrhaging votes among latinos, getting killed. it's hard to win an election if you're losing 75-25. if it's successful, you bring 11 million or 12 million people
onto the voting rolls who may vote 65-35 against you. how do you square the circle? you sign the immigration reform. you get to say we're tolerant to immigration reform and there's a pathway to citizenship, and by the way, that pathway to citizenship takes 40 years. if you can find a way behind the scenes to make the pathway to citizenship essentially impossible to get through, you can lengthen that path. you can put all sorts of obstacles and hurdles to jump over in the path. if you can do that, then you can kind of have your cake and eat it too. you can sign onto the bill. you can vote for the bill. you can try to get the political benefits without paying that price of having all these new voters on the rolls. so my question to you guys is what are you looking at in the details of what the pathway to citizenship looks like that is the difference between essentially a fictional aspirational pathway to citizenship and an actual pathway people can get on, walk down, and end up as citizens? >> first of all, it should be
comprehensive, and it should actually set time lines. you shouldn't be penalized if you are taking right action to get on that path. and i really do think that it is very cynical to the sense that we've seen in the past the patterns are where there are roadblocks that republicans will put up. even some democrats who are rather conservative. we still have a lot of work to do here. my sense is that we really do have to continue to educate the public. that's where the real action will be. yes, you'll have leadership in the senate and house talking back and forth, but the reality for some of us who have been in town in washington is that we've got to make some movement. and the political will of the republicans, i think, to engage with the latino community is somewhat real in certain sectors. you still have to remember the makeup of congress is still dominated by individuals who don't represent minority districts. so that's going to be the real test. my hat goes off to the new members of the house and the senate and the reality that latino -- the dreamers and other people are realizing how
important it is. this is an economic issue as much as a security issue. >> i think it's important to underscore that it's the first great step, that there's a bipartisan group in the senate working on this, that there's a group also meeting in the house working on this. >> you're actually me not to harsh the mellow too soon. we should be applauding -- >> i think you're right. the devil is in the details. and a wapathway to citizenship cannot be contingent on a group like jan brewer talking about the border. it cannot be contingent on this poli politicized group of people talking about whether it's okay to move the pathway forward. our parents are here. we've been here for a long period of time. we can't wait a generation long line for our parents to be u.s. citizens. >> are there conflict points on this? you represent really interesting district. it's a new district in nevada, 25% hispanic, 16% african american, 7% asian. this is an issue that was actually in your district, if i'm not mistaken. >> the president came and laid
out the need for the comprehensive immigration reform to be passed now. that's the issue. the moment is now. i agree. the fact that we've made this much progress, the fact that there is bipartisan agreement in the senate, and i hope in the house, that we will be able to move a bill that provides for pathway to citizenship, that does continue to sprnten our border, that enforces some of the employer responsibility around not hiring workers who are not legal, and also making sure we're keeping families together. i think that is the cornerstone of this policy. we have to keep in the forefront this is about people. it's about lives. it's about families. and immigration policy has always been about keeping families together. >> it's important to highlight that what we saw this week with the senate blueprint and with the president's speech, it's an important step forward, definitely progress. i think you raise some very
important questions. i think that it's like, when we saw these proposals, it's like going back to 2007, and a lot of these questions that we raise late in the game. so i'm glad a lot of people are starting to talk about these questions now. how many people are going to be left out of this ultimate package? this blueprint coming out talks about these requirements. there's research we can reference and say, hey, with this english language requirement, you're going to leave out millions of undocumented immigrant frs a possible solution. there's research now from reputable institutions that says these different requirements you're putting in. the employment verification. richard trumpco from afl said potentially millions of workers could be left out of a possible solution. we need to talk about those details early on, and we need to look at that so we can create a bill that's truly pro migrant. if we're going to set the goal post at 11 million, we need to create policy that gets us there and has an honest debate about where we're going to get to. >> i want to show two bits of
data that actually your organization brought my attention to. this is from the immigration policy institute. this is the percentage of undocumented workers left out of comprehensive reform based on where you put the english language proficiency. level 3 is 45% out. level 4 is 56%. there's not going to be a new york times poll that says senate changes english proficiency requirement from level 3 to level 4. but that's 2 million people's lives on the line. >> there's real concern about who will be left out and what it will mean. this bipartisan proposal suggests that one has to register. the first thing that one must do is register. what does it mean if you don't qualify? what does it mean if you don't meet those requirements? do we expect mass deportation? if someone left in this kind of provisional or temporary legal status indefinitely? >> how do you decide also, if you're an in home health care
worker or someone who's working with two or three employees at a small restaurant and you've had a history of working there but maybe you've been paid under the ground, so to speak. how do you come out and say, look, i have paid taxes. maybe i even used someone else's social security number. am i going to be penalized? does that disqualify me from being a part tof this? what happened to those family members, who wanted to work but couldn't find employment legitimate? you can't penalize these people in that way. >> i think we learned from action program for workers who can have a work permit and have temporary reprieve from deportation, that the fee is also a huge issue in our communities. you're asking people to pay back taxes, to pay penalties, to pay fees. you're not really creating a pathway for people to go from a provisional status to anything else. >> here's the other issue. what the fines are going to be. more data. $1,000 fine would affect 2% of undocumented population.
as you scale up, if it's a $10,000 fine, that's maybe knocking out a quarter of the folks that we're talking about. congressman, i mean, one of the things i think is interesting, when we talk about these requirements, it seems to me that the requirements for the pathway to citizenship were reverse engineered around the campaign trail. so the message that tested best and the thing that got -- that sort of soothed the minds of voters the most was to give this litany of tough but fair, to quote the senate language. go to the back of the line, pay your back taxes, fees, learn english. this is like a dual responsibility thing, and that's where the policy is coming, reversed engineered around what is best. i want to talk to you about what the politics of this are in your district. wears off. been there. tried that. ladybug body milk? no thanks. [ female announcer ] stop searching and start repairing. eucerin professional repair moisturizes while actually repairing very dry skin. it's so powerful you can skip a day...
but light enough you won't want to. dermatologist recommended eucerin. the end of trial and error has arrived. try a free sample at eucerinus.com. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪
and i was told to call my next of kin. at 33 years old, i was having a heart attack. now i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i didn't know this could happen so young. take control, talk to your doctor. i didn't know this could happen so young. ...tax time can ofbe...well...taxing. so right now we'll give you... ...$10 off any turbo tax deluxe level software or higher! find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax.
important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home, who gets a privilege of becoming a citizen of the united states of america. when we talk about that in the abstract, it's easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of us versus them. and when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them. we forget that. >> that's the president speaking in your district earlier this week. when we talk about what the lay of the land is in terms of what you're going to go back to your constituents and talk about and what the questions you're going to get, the angry ones and the worried ones, what are you -- how are you going into this thinking about what matters to your constituents? >> well, in actuality, i focus on immigration really as the civil rights issue of our time. this is about providing equal
opportunity, justice for every individual. and it's just like the civil rights movement in the '60s. it's just like the women's rights movement before. it's about providing opportunity on an equal basis. we want to move workers from poverty to the middle class. it starts with a strong immigration policy. you want to improve health care in the long term so that people can obtain and sustain their health benefits. it starts with a strong immigration policy -- education and the like. this, again, is personal. i had a group of citizens. i formed a citizens advisory group to help me do what i can to make this bill strong. i'm on the homeland security committee, which is one of the two committees that has jurisdiction on immigration policy in the house. when we met, they brought up some very strong points. for example, i have constituents
right now whose children are in foster care because their parents have been deported, and they can't get the children to their loved ones who want to care for them because we have a broken immigration system. so the status quo isn't working. and we have to move to something that is more comprehensive, but it is about getting the language. it's about seeing it in writing. it's knowing what these preconditions mean, and responsibility to it. i would say to the entire american public, for those who really care about doing this the right way, in a way that preserves and instills the civil rights for all people, that you contact your legislators, you contact your congress people, and you tell them what it is you want to see out of this comprehensive immigration package. >> i get really concerned about worker safety and protection. right now we currently have people that are immigrants and low skilled workers in many industries, they're currently
experiencing wage step. they're not even getting paid minimum wage and overtime. many folks that we talk about don't even know what their rights are. we have to make sure that whatever enforcement comes into play here, that the employer is responsible for making sure they meet their federal and state commitments. >> you touch on two issues that are part of the four principles. one is the future flow issue, and the other is employer enforcement. >> yes. >> there seems like there is now kind of a consensus around employer enforcement. it strikes me that there's been movement towards that as what everyone wants, right? that's in the president's plan. but i want -- yeah, why should i be more skeptical? if you say to me as a voter, look, you're an employer. you can't hire people who are illegal. that's against the law definitionally. we're going to create some system that verifies it. that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. >> it is if you can maintain a system that's accurate and doesn't have a big error rate.
certainly, the system now e-verify, has a high error rate. what happens when bad information comes up because the names look the same or they're mixed up because the inputted material is wrong. you can throw somebody out right away. that happens. the other thing i'm thinking is what happens to people legitimately are trying to get work here, and they have used maybe false documents before, social security numbers. they've been paying into the system, and maybe they work for someone who hasn't really given them a pay stub, and yet they can show they've earned income somewhere. maybe they have a bank account or something. how are we going to use that information to not penalize that person to show they can support themself, that they can pay into a system to do back wages, to pay back whatever penalties they have to pay. we have to come up with the details. right now i don't think that anyone is thinking about that. >> part of it also is the infrastructure available. you talk about the deportations. if you overnight are going to take the system as it's
constituted with the number of staff and immigration courts. immigration courts, by the way, america, go to an immigration court. it's a total disaster. i've done some reporting from immigration courts, the whole system seems totally overwhelmed and totally dysfunctional and totally broken. if you take the overwhelmed, dysfunctional, broken system as it currently is and say these 11 million people you need to enter into this system. the idea is everybody gets in the same line. if the line is now you wait ten years, and then you say you 11 million people are going to go through the same channels, that's just going to destroy -- the infrastructure has to change if that's going to work. >> the latino electorate sent a very powerful message in november of last year. they voted for citizenship. they voted for legalization. to start talking and introduce the debate talking about enforcement, to talk about e-verify, a flawed system that beyond the error rate has been tested and documented to be a very problematic program. when you start talking about all these different requirements and
start kind of shrinking the overall number of immigrants that are actually going to make it through the process, that's a big problem. >> why is e-verify -- is the problem with e-verify -- that's the name of the proprietary system actually used by employers. is there a problem in the practice and implementation or in the principle? what is your objection? is the objection the principle of employers having this role as the verifiers, or is the problem like with the no fly list, that it's really buggy and you get all sorts of people? >> i think that our problem is you really need to look -- we're in a different period of time. 2007 this was kind of predominant in the conversation. the problem back then was different than today. illegal border crossings were different. we're at a negative rate in terms of illegal border crossings. we need to start the discussion talking about legalization. how are we going to get to the 11 million mark? that needs to be the goal post. we need to figure out policies that get us to that 11 million.
and i think that the problem now is that -- and one of the reasons we were disappointed with both the president's speech and with the senate proposal is that it starts -- it's kind of a false start. starting off from the wrong position. we need to be focusing on the problem of today. again, the 11 million. >> and i don't dispute that we need to start with the pathway to citizenship as the focal point, and it's what i have concern with the senate option, but i do feel that, as the president said, you have to take all of these solutions together as a package. there does need to be accountability from all sides, from the individuals who are here to the employers to the government that has a responsibility to protect our border and to have an infrastructure for our visa program, and that is going to be on this congress to work those details out. but we have to look at all of those. >> let's talk about that and the
future flow question, which is are we fixing this only to have it broken again in ten years? starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news. i honestly loved smoking, and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you could smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems,
tell your doctor if you have new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. with chantix and with the support system it worked. it worked for me. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you. to compete on the global stage. what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university, we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone is ready with the know-how we need for a new tomorrow. [ male announcer ] make sure america's ready. make sure you're ready. at devry.edu/knowhow. ♪
for their annual football trip. that's double miles you can actually use. tragically, their buddy got sacked by blackouts. but it's our tradition! that's roughing the card holder. but with the capital one venture card you get double miles you can actually use. [ cheering ] any flight, anytime. the scoreboard doesn't lie. what's in your wallet? hut!
i have me on my fantasy team. a few relevant facts as we bring the conversation to talk about the actual policy details of the comprehensive immigration reform. one is something, arturo, you just mentioned, which is the flow has drastically decreased. 1991, annual immigration, 370,000. by 2000, up to 770,000. a lot of this has to do with the housing boom and the economy. the economy roars, a lot of people coming in. as it declines, immigration goes down. right now we have 140,000 coming in from mexico. so that's a big change. things change depending on where the economy is and the flow. the other thing is when we talk about immigration in this country, we only talk about
illegal immigration basically. there's a whole legal immigration apparatus, and just so you know what the pie chart looks like, there's about 40 million immigrants in this country who are documents. that means they immigrated and become citizens or they have green cards, permanent legal residency. there's about 3.5 million of guest worker visas, about 2 million have student visas, and the rest are undocumented. so this is what the pie chart looks like. we're talking about bringing that red slice into the blue slice. that's a big part of it. but the other place that red slice can go, if we're looking there, thinking about the future, is that guest worker visa or student visa. there's other kinds of ways you can create legal status for people that is not citizenship. and one of the big fights traditionally, particularly between labor and capital over immigration, has been the notion of how much you want to -- how many guest workers you want to create. is that still a sticking point,
hilda, because i feel like the chamber and the afl have been sitting down for a long time trying to come to some place that they cannot end up blowing up the deal over their disagreement about what that future flow looks like. >> i think that the business community obviously wants to have workers coming in, and they want to be able to determine what amount, what time frame, so they can get whatever they need done. i really am concerned, though, that when people think that somehow allowing for a separate program that doesn't allow for a pathway to citizenship and at least give that individual a chance to become legalized and earn it because they're working, they're paying their taxes, and i just feel that -- >> meaning a guest worker program that isn't you're a guest worker first and then you become citizen, but a guest worker program that is a cul de sac of guest workerness, in there's nowhere else to do. >> and that's what i'm worried about because the devil's in the details. it's too soon to determine that, but i assume there's discussions going on now. i know the afl-cio is backing
comprehensive immigration reform. the lead individual is out of los angeles, who's been phenomenal talking about civil rights, legal protections, making sure we don't abuse workers who are here, don't displace workers also. but also make sure the ones who are here who are undocumented have a clear pathway and it's legitimate and employers are held and accountable to that. >> most americans don't understand and don't have a recollection about what the program created. >> explain that. >> it was a guest worker program that brought in millions of worker, primarily from mexico. >> this is the '50s, '60s, and '70s. >> and there was an unprecedented level of abuse, sacrifice by these workers. tremendous mistreatment. i think it's important, before we look at an immigration solution, that we look at workers protections, that we look at the ability of these workers to be protected, have a
pathway to citizenship. when you start looking in mexico, philippines, and other countries, you have a waiting period right now of over 18 years. that's just -- >> for legal. >> legal immigration. so there's no question that it's a central issue. you have to look at you don't want to create a permanent underclass through this new -- >> and cut wages. >> i worked with someone who was once on a work visa. when you're working and you have kids, particularly a mortgage, getting fired is a cataclysmic thing. if you have a kid in school and a mortgage and you get fired and you're going to get sent back to another country, think about how that affects the way you deal with your boss, how that affects labor power. there's a huge, huge thumb on the scale. you mentioned the border. the border is a huge part of this. enforcement, deportation, the border. what the border really is and what it means after this. twins. i didn't see them coming.
i have obligations. cute obligations, but obligations. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses.
the most contentious details in the senators plan for immigration reform is a border commission. this would be a group of governors from south western states who would decide whether the border was secure enough before immigrants can go through the process of obtaining citizenship. senator chuck schumer tried to clarify on thursday. >> the purpose of that committee is to get input from them, to have them be part of the process, for them to understand we're not trying to roll over them but get a great deal of input. but as senator mccain points out, it would be inconstitutional to delegate things to that committee. what we've proposed is that the dhs secretary, whomever it is, will have final say on whatever
metrics we propose. >> the debate about when and if the border is secure passes over the fact that the federal government is currently alloc e allocating more money and personnel to border security than ever before. in fact, in dollar terms, it's become the federal government's biggest law enforcement priority. check this out. in 1986, the total amount budgeted for the ins was just over $574 million, compared to $2.2 billion for all other law enforcement agencies combined. compare that to last year when $18 billion of federal government spending on immigration enforcement agencies was 24% more than barrel spending for the fbi, dea, secret service, u.s. marshal service, and atf combined. also, the number of deportations has increased every year since president obama took office. in obama's first year of office, he deported almost 390,000 and topped more than 400,000 deportations for the first time last year. everyone in the immigration debate seems to take for granted
that the notion of securing the border is a laudable goal, but the enforcement first mentality has a host of consequences not to mention human costs. it ignores so much about the realities of migration in the 21st century. joining us on the table is elisio medina and aaron pena, a former member of the texas house of representatives, foupder of the hispanic republican conference of texas, now senior vice president of firm crosswinds communications. aaron, i want to start with you because you are from the border. how has the border changed during the period that you've been there previous from the ramp up of enforcement that we've seen now, many more border agents, fencing, we have put a lot more resources into making that as impermeable to people we don't want to cross as possible. >> let me first tell you, i'm from deep south texas.
and historically speaking, the largest city close to us was 300 miles away, that being san antonio. on the mexican side, it's monterrey, mexico, 2 1/2 hours away. we grew up as an independent culture, the border culture. so both the mexican side and the american side, we've always thought of ourselves as one community. we don't think of ourselves as two different nations, like the nation thinks today. after 9/11, that changed. prior to 9/11, we went over there for lunch. we went over there for socializing. people come over. in fact, my home community of mcallen, texas, the business community can increase twofold because much of monterrey comes over to go shopping. that changed because the border got hardened, not only from law enforcement perspective, but the cartels came in. if you want to cross the border illegally, you literally have to go through the cartels in order to get across. so life has changed.
many of the wealthy and upper middle class have moved to texas. they no longer feel safe in mexico. >> interesting. >> so there's a brain drain that's occurring. we, in turn, are prospering. their money is coming into our banks. >> so problem solved. this sounds like it's been a smashing success. >> problem solved for us, but not for mexico. >> that's interesting. >> so this causes other problems. the drug trade increases. people are moving across at great risk to themselves. immigrants who used to cross the river by physically crossing the river, used to just do that without the cartel presence. literally, you may have to transport drugs or do some other criminal activity or subject yourself to rape or some other form of -- >> by criminalizing entry, you are turning people into criminals, not just legally, but actually practically. you have now created a system in which crossing is criminal, so it is run by genuine criminals who want you to do criminal
activity if you cross. >> that's exactly right. it makes it difficult for our community to prosper because the people who want to shop in our community from mexico don't want to come across. they have to fly across. that is more costly. it's more difficult. and so for those at the lower economic scale, it's more difficult to come across, to have that one community that we used to have. >> if i make -- excuse me. if i may, in addition to everything aaron has said, in the last several years, 300 people have died crossing the border. they come across through the middle of the desert, just carrying a jug of water. many of them wind up dying through exposure or wind up being assaulted by gangs. i think that in our country we should not have a system that leads to that many deaths. >> i completely agree. let me play devil's advocate for a moment. look, what is a sovereign nation? a sovereign nation is a state
that has control over its borders. it seems almost a precondition for what we think of as sovereignty. you can say who can come in and who can come out. you have borders that are defensible. within those borders, you have a democratic policy or whatever kind of regime you have. the state has a monopoly. this is all constituent pillars of what it means to be a country. when you say there are these negative costs to defending that border, making that border impenetrable or defensible, i think there are some people out there who say, well, look, there's costs to everything, but this has to be a priority because in some existential sense, we cannot be a nation unless we have this kind of thing. >> but there are differences with class, and what i think eliseo is talking about is why is it that enforcement comes out so heavily and so strong against people who are maybe from rural parts of mexico or central america? why is it you can allow for other countries to have access
here as soon as they touch the shores? why is it that you can pay your way into this country also if you come from indonesia or china or other areas and have citizenship granted to you in a matter of time? so there's a lot of distinctions there, and i think people need to be aware of that, of what occurs. but also with respect to security, my understanding is that el paso is probably one of the safest places now, where we have seen border security enforcement and everything working well. crime is down. the cartels and all that. i was just there a year ago, and, in fact, that's what my security detail told me. >> i want to get your thought as someone who represents a border state and also someone who actually came across that border right after we take this break. e has to face. face it with puffs ultra soft & strong. puffs has soft, air-fluffed pillows for 40% more cushiony thickness. face every day with puffs softness. this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work?
you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy morning, boys. so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, nobody keeps you on the road like progressive commercial auto. [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today. capella university understands nurses are dealing with a than wider range of issues. and there are ever-changing regulations. when you see these challenges, do you want to back away or take charge? with a degree in the field of healthcare or nursing from capella university,
you'll have the knowledge to advance your career while making a difference in the lives of patients. let's get started at capella.edu. your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have six grams of sugars. with fifteen grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. sven gets great rewards for his small business! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve great rewards!
[ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. that was the president spae speaking at the state of the union but not really quite speaking. let me tell you what he said.
he said, i believe as strongly as ever we should take on illegal immigration. that's why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before, fewer illegal crossings since i took office. the points of action are out of excuses. we should be working on immigration reform now. this is this enforcement mentality. border security is a threshold issue. once you get that, then you can talk about everything else. that's what we've seen has been institutionalized in the senate program. i wonder what you think of that approach as someone who represents a state that is on the border. >> the issue i have is what you just laid out and the president has talked about, which is we've gone from 10,000 to 20,000 border patrol agents. we have fewer individuals crossing the border illegally than we've had in some time, and we've invested over $17 billion in enforcement of the border, more than any other enforcement of any other thing in the country, including drugs, which begs the question, where is the
war on drugs? and so as a law maker, as i look at this bill, once we concede in writing, i'm going to be asking those questions. who's benefitting from a policy like that? absolutely, we need to continue to strengthen our border. it's about having a process where individuals who are coming through the border legally can be safe. no woman should have to be raped by an illegal cartel in order to come to our country legally, and it's our job to make sure they are safe. so we have to make those investments in infrastructure, and that's another reason why we do have to continue the border security, but do it in a way that's smart and that ensures that people aren't profiting from these type of investments. >> you think that's possible? ellis, you crossed the border before 9/11 and before the bonanza of border security. how did that experience shape your thinking on this?
>> let me just tell you, my experience with the immigration system goes back to the '40s and '50s. my father was an undocumented worker. he also came to work in the u.s. as a guest worker during the brasero program. and he told us about the abuses of both of these systems and how the human dignity gets sacrificed to this system. so this forms my opinion about why we need to change this system. and the problem that i have with the conversation with the border is that it really is not focusing on how we have a system that actually works. for example, 40% of the undocumented did not come through the border. they came through airplanes. they came student visas, and then they overstayed. so putting all this money and personnel on the border is not going to fix that part of the problem. secondly, it is focused on
nannies, farm workers, factory workers, and not criminals. it's not focused on the people that aaron is talking about who are committing all of these crimes on the border. can you imagine, if we have a comprehensive solution that legalizes the people here, that makes -- has a process for future immigrants to come through a legal process, nriskig their lives through the border, then all of those boots on the ground, all of the 18 million, can focus on criminals, not legal immigrants. >> i want to bring in ruben martinez, professor at loyola university. we're going to take a quick break, and then i want you to talk about how the border has changed. u... ...$10 off any turbo tax deluxe level software or higher! find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax.
wears off. [ female announcer ] stop searching and start repairing. eucerin professional repair moisturizes while actually repairing very dry skin. the end of trial and error has arrived. try a free sample at eucerinus.com. the end of trial and error has arrived. i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors
keitel. a little technical difficulties. as someone who's been chronicling life on the border and across the border, how the border has changed in this period that aaron describes really beginning with 9/11. >> certainly. it's become a phantasmagorical scene down there. certainly, the drug war has made it an impossible place, but the insecurity to the drug war because of the insecurity. the billions poured into the border and gun control in general leads to a situation of 18 shooting deaths on the border of undocumented immigrants on both sides, by the way, on this side of the border and the mexican side of the border in which border patrol officers have used lethal force in rock throwing incidents, which makes the border like the occupied territories in the middle east.
we've seen a place that was always contesteded, always tense, turn into a much, much darker and scarier place. and it's all part of this culture of punitive enforcement really that the emphasis has been purely on that for years and years and years. and for this new legislation, for the debate to start with talking about the first talking point to be more enforcement before we get to a path towards legalization, to me, is really the wrong place to start. >> okay. but you're talking about the negative sequences, unintended consequences of border build-up. it's pretty obvious i'm sympathetic with that line of reasoning. i do want to play devil's advocate because, look, the flow has declined massively. right? that's probably a combination from the people that i've spoken to of the economic situation and the fact that, yes, if you put $18 billion and doubled the number of border enforcement troops and you make it more and more difficult to cross over, fewer people are going to cross over, right? that's the basic logic.
why is it not a success? for years, people said things like, if you build a ten-foot fence, they're going to find an 11-foot ladder. but during this period, in which we have massively increased the amount of enforcement and enforcement mechanism, we have reduced that flow across this border. is this a big policy success? >> i don't think it's us that have reduced the flow across the border. i think the vast majority of that reduction is basically the economy. when the economy was roaring, people were roaring across the border. and now that the economy has cooled off for the last several years, it's definitely been the opposite. the deterrent -- i will talk to you about deterrents along the border. i wrote a book several years ago about a family that lost three brothers along the border due to a terrible car chase. several people were killed in that accident, including three brothers in michuan, mexico.
the remaining members of that family have continued to cross the border in the wake of their brothers' deaths and have done so ever since. deterrence -- the border has always been a scary place. it's scarier now. but if you see the economy start ticking up here again, you will see people start crossing the borders. there are ramps that go over the highest parts of the border. we will never seal a 2,000-mile border today, and much of the technology that was much ballyhooed about sealing the border perfectly, such as the surveillance watch towers that boeing put down there at the cost of a couple billion dollars, couldn't tell the difference ultimately between a cow and a human being. i think, to look elsewhere, if we're going to talk about security. >> congressman? >> i want to be clear here. i am not in favor of the senate plan which has additional border security and a litmus test before we can have pathway to citizenship, but i do believe we have to continue efforts to strengthen the border. why?
for the reason the guest just said, which is as the economy improves, then we may see an uptick in individuals who are crossing the border illegally, and that is not what we want from a good immigration policy that works. we want a process where it's legal. look, we are a nation of immigrants and laws, and we need people to follow our laws, but we need a law that works, and that's why we need comprehensive immigration reform. >> so one of the things i'd like to ask you is, if this emphasis on border patrols -- so there's been a number of ways in which this enforcement is done, right? doubling our border agents. we now have aerial drones that are going over. we have built a physical fence in a bunch of places. we've also built an electronic fence so called in other places, which has been, as ruben, i think, alluded to very buggy and dysfunctional and kind of a boondoggle in a lot of ways. john mccain has said that there's been real improvements in border security.
and asked if it helps the politics of reform. he says, i think it helps a lot. he argues the situation has improved and calls the concern overhyped. and so one thing is there's a political idea here, which is this is the necessary precondition to get reform. my question to you is what is our ideal border look like? if what we're doing now is the wrong thing, what should it look like? [ male announcer ] citi turns 200 this year. in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪ or that printing in color had to cost a fortune.
nobody said an all-in-one had to be bulky. or that you had to print from your desk. at least, nobody said it to us. introducing the business smart inkjet all-in-one series from brother. easy to use. it's the ultimate combination of speed, small size, and low-cost printing. if we took the nissan altima and reimagined nearly everything in it? gave it greater horsepower and class-leading 38 mpg highway... advanced headlights... and zero gravity seats? yeah, that would be cool. introducing the completely reimagined nissan altima. it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. now get a $199-per-month lease on the 2013 nissan altima. ♪ [ sneezes ] [ sniffles ] [ female announcer ] for everything your face has to face.
face it with puffs facial tissues. puffs has air-fluffed pillows for 40% more cushiony thickness. face every day with puffs softness. marie callender's turkey breast with stuffing is a great reason to slow down. creamy mash potatoes, homestyle gravy and 320 calories. marie callender's. it's time to savor. get ready for a lot more of that new-plane smell. we're building the youngest, most modern fleet among the largest us airlines to ensure that you are more comfortable and connected than ever. we are becoming a new american.
and we're talking about the border which has become a flash point in the nation's immigration discussion, and we're talking about what's been happening on the border, which is a tremendous amount of enforcement. which if you're not down there, it doesn't matter. it doesn't affect your daily life, but in that region of the country, it's been really a tectonic shift. the question before we went to break, if the way that we've gone, more enforcement, more boots on the ground, higher fences, drones, et cetera, is the wrong way to go. what's the right way to go, aaron? >> first of all, i don't disagree with the enforcement policy. we need to have enforcement. we do have real crimes. the cartels are there. most of the crimes occur on the mexican side of the border, but we occasionally have assassinations or shootouts on our side of the border as well, and we're concerned about that. we're concerned about the effect it has on business and people crossing. but to throw a monkey wrench in our discussion here today. >> please. >> the conservative perspective is, look, we're going to have immigration reform.
i fully expect it to pass after much hand wringing and what not. but from a conservative perspective, what they see is 11 million people eventually becoming citizens, and then the magnet is still there. we're going to have more people, and like simpson-mazzoli we had in the past, where we legalized 3 million people. >> the 1987 amnesty bill. >> exactly. it doesn't stop. we have more people coming. one of the solutions in texas is we need to have a guest worker program. we need to have a way to deal with this market demand for labor in some industries -- and right now we don't have it. i don't think the obama administration plan deals with the issue, but it's something that we in texas see as a solution to the need for these people to find work and the solution of dealing with the workers that we need in some of our industries. >> can i touch on that?
>> yes. >> then lets invest in programs that train people here in the united states. i find it fascinating that the conservatives are so interested in making sure that they have access to workers through a guest worker program, and yet they won't invest in education or employment or training programs or other things that help train and prepare the american work force for those jobs and the jobs of the 21st century. >> the jobs we're talking about is agricultural workers. it's not a question of training. it's the lowest part of the wage scale. >> we have high wage workers coming through immigration processes. we have engineers. >> h-1b. >> this is where immigration isn't just about mexico. it's not just a latino issue only. this is about affecting the asian community, africa, caribbean nations, and the full spectrum of skill sets that are needed. so i think, if we want to have a real conversation about the needs in our work force, then
let's talk about the investments in education and job training and other things that will get us to what we need. >> why does it make sense to bring someone from india or china who's an engineer who's going to get paid maybe $1,200 a month as opposed to a u.c. berkeley graduate or cal state graduate from cal state l.a., who after graduation in four years could be pulling down maybe $4,000 a month? those are economic differences and challenges that are going on, and that's also a part of this debate. >> but we just went through -- wait a second. we just went through the looking glass. i want everyone to note we just went through the looking glass. you two just made the restrictionist case. you guys just made the case, the case that, if you turn into lou dobbs, you turn into fox news, what they say is they're coming and taking our jobs. the two of you just said they're coming and taking our jobs. >> we're talking about fairness. >> i said it's about civil rights and equality. and you don't bring individuals to the united states and keep them in low wage jobs, benefit
from their labor, and then they never have the pathway to citizenship. i come from a state where immigrants and minorities, particularly african americans, built las vegas. they built our hospitality industry. they built our construction sector. and why would you allow individuals to come and help you build your economy and then not give them a pathway to citizenship. >> here's the argument i would make. we're talking about a guest worker program. again, i'm not -- i'm sort of playing devil's advocate here. there are people who want to come and work in the u.s. and don't want to be citizens. they want to go back and forth every day, and there used to be an institutional way to do that. here's ronald reagan, fellow republican, aaron, making the case in 1980 for exactly this kind of almost open border policy for this sort of flow of labor. take a look. >> rather than making them -- or talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual
problems, make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then while they're working and earning here, they pay taxes here. when they want to go back, they can go back and cross and open the border both ways. >> why force people to immigrate if they don't want to immigrate, they just want to work? >> i think that one of the perverse things of the build-up on the border is it's made people have to stay in the u.s. because it's too hard to come back if they leave. what i think we need to do for the future is, first of all, fix the problem with 11 million people. the next question is what do we do with future immigrants and how do we make sure that there is opportunity for people in the u.s.? that's why we call it comprehensive. we need to take a look and fix it from all aspects. and one of the things i think we do need, if there's going to be a temporary worker program in the future, it has to be different than what we have today. it cannot be the program that my father entered into 70 years ago. people need to come with full
protection of our labor laws, of our wage and hour laws, and they need an effective way of enforcing it. that's not the way it works now. so i think what we need is open up opportunities and fill in where we need this. >> ruben, if i may, i just love the clip of ronald reagan that shows republicans at that point were to the left of where the democratic party, president obama, is today. that's kind of the orwellian twists and turns the immigration debate has taken over the years. i think part of the problem with the idea of guest worker is the very name guest worker. for people and immigrant rights advocacy, for people who know the history of the border, that name, which translates to brasero in spanish, is tinged with just constitutionalized exploitation. it began in world war ii and continued all the way to the 1960s, and just horror stories of the way workers were treated. i think we need a whole new term
for that type. if somebody crosses the border back and forth, maybe it's a trans-border reality of people carrying back and forth. really that labor has to be on both sides of the border, making sure these workers have all the protections to them that only labor reform can give. >> one of the ways we institutionalize incentives for labor across the border is production to move across the border. so a lot of production moved down right across the border in mexico and use the labor pool here. one of the histories here is about the kind of arbitrage that capital can do to find the cheapest labor. so what is at the core of the way the global economy looks in the 21st century, which is you can pick up your plant and move it to a country with low wages. if you're a worker, you can't pick up and decide whatever
country you want to go work in. that makes me wonder, are we -- what ruben just said, are we afraid to advocate the logical conclusion, which is something that actually does look like open borders? is that the solution and everyone is just essentially too scared to say that because it would be politically toxic? you, congressman, can i get you on the record for open borders? >> i think one day we're going to have a mexican president who says to washington, president obama, bring down this wall. that's going to happen one day when there's real leadership in mexico. >> we are a nation of laws, and we have to have a process, and that has been the case with our immigration policy. so my question on this guest worker pieces, is this about labor and the economy only, or is it about families? how are you affected as a child by that policy? what happens when individuals come under a guest worker program to their children?
i have constituents in my district, d.r.e.a.m.ers, who were brought here no fault of their own, played by the rules, graduated from high l skschool,y to find out they can't be full participating members in our society and have been denied opportunities to move on. i've got dream big vegas, that's out there right now fighting to make this immigration reform bill a reality. so what happens to the children and the families under a worker, guest program, and shouldn't we be balancing those interests? >> that's a great question. >> i think it's absolutely right. first of all, when you have children left either in the u.s. because of this broken immigration system or in mexico, when people have to come here and are locked in the united states, that doesn't work for families. that doesn't work for children. that's why we need a 21st century model of immigration reform. take care of the ones here, figure out how the immigrants of the future are going to come here in a way that they're not
exploited, and then turn our border enforcement into chasing criminals, not nannies and farm workers. >> i think that's what adds to the hypocrisy of those on the other side who advocate for a guest worker program who also say they stand for family values. i believe our immigration policy should keep families together. they should promote the parents taking care of their kids and kids being able to pursue their education and career goals and serving in the military. >> i agree. you could do both. you just need to be smart about it. >> one of the points that eliseo made that i want to hammer home, and i think it's really important. i worked with folks who are undocumented in restaurants and different settings. is the way that border enforcement means that people come and stay in that periods where the border enforcement is lower, people would go back and forth a lot. you come and earn money, undocumented, go back, and maybe build a home and get a job in mexico.
instead, we have created increasingly a forced choice. the more that we've ramped up border enforcement, the harder it is to go back. the more it means, okay, i'm going to say good-bye to my family and not see them for 12 years or 14 years. i talked to a family of a woman from the west indies this week in reporting i was coidoing, an she hasn't seen her family in 25 years because it's too risky to go back. that's a big part of this. ruben martinez, author of "desert america." medina of the restaurant employees service union. and aaron pena. can marco rubio lead the republican party to latino voters or vice versa? that's next. hey, it's sara. i'm going pro. i've been using crest pro-health for a week. my dentist said it was gonna help transform my mouth.
[ male announcer ] go pro. for a clean that's up to four times better, try these crest pro-health products together. [ sara ] i've been using crest pro-health. so far...it feels different. [ male announcer ] crest pro-health protects not just some, but all these areas dentists check most. my mouth feels healthier. it feels cleaner. i think my dentist is gonna see the difference. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health. i don't think i'll ever go back to another product. see. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health. living with moderate to semeans living with pain.is it could also mean living with joint damage. humira, adalimumab, can help treat more than just the pain. for many adults, humira is clinically proven to help relieve pain and stop further joint damage. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal events, such as infections, lymphoma, or other types of cancer, have happened. blood, liver and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure have occurred.
before starting humira, your doctor should test you for tb. ask your doctor if you live in or have been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. tell your doctor if you have had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections or have symptoms such as fever, fatigue, cough, or sores. you should not start humira if you have any kind of infection. ask your rheumatologist about humira, to help relieve your pain and stop further joint damage.
when president obama was reelected in november with 71% of the latino vote, a 44-point advantage over mitt romney, everyone quickly realized republicans simply have to get a larger share of the latino vote in the future if they ever want to win a presidential election again. not only are latinos increasing in population, but they're increasingly voting democratic, and that's largely because the republican base is so hostile towards immigration and so unclear about the country's future, that they allow their presidential nominee to talk like this. >> almost half the jobs in texas were created for illegal aliens. instate tuition for illegal aliens. sanctuary cities, giving tuition breaks to the kids of illegal aliens. four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you're an
illegal alien. you can't have any illegals working on our property. i'm running for office for pete's sake. i can't have illegals. >> after romney's failure, republicans pivoted almost immediately to immigration reform. but giting immigration reform through congress is an extremely difficult task, thanks largely to vociferous production of that same core of republican base voters to whom romney pandered. now enter senator marco rubio, the appointed republican spokesperson for immigration and a member of the so-called gang of eight. rubio presents himself as the only way out of the corner in which the conservative movement and the republican party have painted themselves. through his unique history, background, linguistic influency and republican base, he offers them a way out of this hole. he has been on conservative and radio tv show hosts who in the past have been against policy
proposals to which he is now advocating. >> the it the most thoughtful proposal i have heard, and you explained it better than anybody. >> tehe's a problem solver. he's a conservative, and he's right. we have defactor amnesty, and you could set a light bulb off. >> here's a guy who does not fear talk radio. he embraced it. >> from party elites and much of the conservative media machine, the republican party has the exact same base it had a year ago when mitt romney was throwing the word illegals around like a verbal grenade. one of the most fascinating questions of 2013 is is whether rubio can sell the republican base on more or less the same comprehensive immigration proposal that precipitated an all out revolt just six years ago. joining me editor of the daily caller news foundation. back of the table, laura from united we dream network. jim, i am fascinated by the internal dynamics here. i actually think -- there's this
political question. there's two questions on the table. one is will the base of the republican party allow this? can they be sold on this? will they view this as ini'm mimi iccal to their principles? or is this suicide to bring 11 million or 12 million new voters who might vote 75-25 against you. and the national review wrote this article about the fantasy of latinos being a republican constituency. if we're to take hispanics at their word, conservative attributes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. they're disproportionately low in income and receive government support. they look like many other democratic constituencies. the idea that amnesty is going to put latinos squarely in the gop tent is a fantasy. your thoughts, jim. >> immigration has become the
classic heads i win, tails you lose policy for republicans. immigration has been framed as a referendum as to whether you accept the role of latinos in american society, and republicans are viewed as having placed themselves on the wrong side of the question. i don't think that would change if you were to vote against legislation. we do have some experience with this type of legislation in the past when what was openly described as an amnesty passed in 1986 and the post-amnesty cohort was more democratic in its voting preferences than the hispanic americans prior to that. it didn't really benefit the republicans. >> this is just important. can we show this line graphic again? i think you're making an effort from a descriptive level, an important political case. in 1984 mondale beat reagan among latinos 24%. in 1988, after the amnesty, dukakis beats george h.w. bush by 39%. so the swing towards democrats was plus 15% in between the two elections in which the amnesty
program happened. >> which was signed by a republican president and had strong support from republicans in congress. pat buchanan supported that particular amnesty. why would legislation signed by a democratic president really earn the undying loyalty of these voters to the republican party? >> aaron? >> look, the hispanic population is not modelled on that. you can't say we're going to pass a bill and they're all going to come along. we're very diverse. i come from a rural community, and rural people in my state are conservative. you have second, third, fourth, fifth, 12th generation hispanics living in this country, and they're all very, very different. . most of the young hispanics live in san antonio who are third and fourth generation only speak english, they don't speak spanish. if you find hispanics third and
fourth generatijegeneration ear $40,000 a year. i'm talking about texas. look at italian americans who are catholic and follow many of the same cultural traditions that hispanics do. you can say that many of them are conservative and republican. it's going to take some time. it's not going to happen with one vote. however, immigration on the classes are the prism by which my community, the hispanic community, as diverse as it is, sees the republican party. if you're told you're not welcome, your people carry diseases. >> stereotypes. >> or some other stereotypes, you're going to be offended, and you're going to respond the other way. >> rush limbaugh is talking about how cubans are light skinned and hard working and mexicans are dark and not as hard working. >> the difference between the cuban american community and the mexican community are very different. our historical paths are very different.
>> immigration, obviously. >>s that the point. >> let me ask you. when you were a democrat and became a republican, what year did you do that? >> 2010. >> you did that in 2010 after -- you're saying this is a threshold issue after the sensen-brenner that would have criticized undocumented workers in this country, after the huge revolt against mccain-kennedy. after john mccain had to run away from the bill that had his own name on it because of what the demands made by the republican base. after that, you decided to become a republican. i want to find out right after this break why. with the spark md from capital one, thor gets great rewards for his small business! your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics. put it on my spark card. ow. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve great rewards. [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ]
hi victor! mom? i know you got to go in a minute but this is a real quick meal, that's perfect for two! campbell's chunky beef with country vegetables, poured over rice! [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right. so, aaron, you switched party after all this real anti-immigration backlash. why? >> like the rest of the country, my state is becoming more polarized. democrats are becoming more liberal. republicans are booking more conservative. i was always the target of the liberal wing of the democratic
party. and my values, which are business friend ly, socially conservative, were more in line with the republican party. this is where the work really is. this is where i can make a difference in my lifetime. so i'm very comfortable with my decision. i've never looked back. i think that hispanic republicans can make a difference. ber literally the liaisons of two different communities. there's certain words that offend us. anchor babies, we were having a discussion about that. that is an offensive word. it takes away from the issue that needs to be debated. when you use terms that are offensive. or when you talk about deporting my grandmother. >> it's not the words, yes. but it's the words that are
there because there's a constituency that feels that way. it's not just the people that use anchor babies. all of this is channelling a feeling about invasion, besiegement, impurity. a future that looks nothing like the past. that is a deep feeling of many people in the republican base, and i think sometimes for really nefarious reasons. global capitalism, et cetera. those are real feelings. it's not just the words of there. those words are attached to sentiment in the republican base. >> i think that, when i think about republicans, i think of the changing demographics within, for example, the chamber of commerce, with the local business communities that are starting to reflect and be more open about talking about immigration in a way that is more humane and that actually helps both sides. i get the business part of it, but i think there has to be more humility. i think that some of the chambers at the local level are doing a better job, and they
need to educate the washington, d.c. chamber, who says they represent everybody and is really myoptic in terms of how they view immigration reform. >> i have to say something. it's more ignorance for most people. i think very few percentage of that number that you're talking about of the anti-immigrants actually feels that way. i think for the rest, it's really a lack of knowledge about who is who. and this is what dreamers did. before dreamers were dreamers, they were just illegal immigrants, they were just illegal students. and when we introduced ourselves into america, and america recognized that we're not criminal, we're not dangerous, then we were embraced by america. it's the same thing that hasn't happened with our parents yet, and that's the work that needs to be done throughout this debate. that humanizes people, and that moves away from this notion of these people are all dangerous, and they're taking over our country. >> jim, here's someone who, my sense is opposes the pro proels, the gang of eight proposal.
this s. the is there a way to make that argument in a way that won't be viewed as offensive or viewed as more of the same that will further alienate voters? number two is the consistency of people that are opposed within the conservative movement, within the conservative opinion, how much power do they have? you have david brooks now columnizing in favor of immigration reform. marco rubio is out there. it seems like the momentum is all on that side. >> i'm not sure david brooks is much of a departure, but certainly mark levine and sean hannity and bill o'reilly and lou dobbs do mark a bit of a shift on the issue and certainly republicans need to get right on this issue if they're to win future elections. i think a big change was in the 1990s, the face of restrictionism, the face of immigration enforcement was barbara jordan, african american congress woman from texas, a democrat appointeded to an immigration reform commission by bill clinton, and the clinton
administration briefly flirted with supporting her proposals, which would have reduced illegal immigration and toughened enforcement. in the last decade, the face of restrictionism has been joe arpaio and that, i think, has produced much less favorable political conditions for what essentially in many respects could -- there are some liberal ends to a stronger immigration position. what you're seeing, a tighter labor market at the lower end of the income scale would benefit an american working class that's disproportionately black and lati latino. >> the data has been murky and increasingly less murky that the wage effects of our current immigration regime don't hit, for instance, high school dropouts or low skilled workers like in the labor hierarchy that are native born, as hard as previously thought. there are some dissentures in that, and an economist at harvard is one of them. was there any point of interaction that you're not
actually hurting native born workers? i can see a political argument in that respect. >> i want to hear from you what you think about the figure of rubio. he's now the kind of central axis for this whole thing. i think it's fascinating how craftily he's positioned himself as essentially the -- you know, like you said, the liaison between these different worlds and essentially the arc de triomphe of republican moral victory. wait for it... [ dog ] you know, i just don't think i should have to wait for it! who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, we won't make you wait for it. our efficient, online system allows us to get you through your home loan process fast. which means you'll never have to beg for a quick closing. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. bonkers, look at me when i'm talking to you. [ woman ] too weak.
wears off. been there. tried that. ladybug body milk? no thanks. [ female announcer ] stop searching and start repairing. eucerin professional repair moisturizes while actually repairing very dry skin. it's so powerful you can skip a day... but light enough you won't want to. dermatologist recommended eucerin. the end of trial and error has arrived. try a free sample at eucerinus.com.
so right now we'll give you... ...$10 off any turbo tax deluxe level software or higher! find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax. marco rubio, savior of the republican party, self-appointed, i think. there's a growing bandwagon that wants to appoint him. do you think he's going to be able to pull this off? >> that's really the question. i would say he's in a tough spot because republicans, conservatives went from seeing immigration as an issue that was used in midterm elections to win elections, and now we're having to deal with this because of the
last election and the change in demographics in the country. he's having to bridge both worlds, and it's a very difficult spot for you? amongst movement, conservatives, my sense is that there will be growing skepticism. but i think he's going in the right direction. >> we haven't seen the rubio backlash yet. it's been a week, right? i think it's interesting, eric erickson of a red state, hes headline was i don't like marco rubio's plan. there, i said it. you'd be surprised how long i've taken to say this. my friends have all argued over the details. he's so reluctant, at this point, this kind of aura around rubio is strong enough, but do you think that's going to last? >> it depends. marco rubio, when you look at the gang of eight, is the only new face there. even among the republicans, they were generally supporters of the mccain-kennedy legislation. so rubio has kind of put himself in a position where he legitimates a comprehensive
immigration bill with a certain number of house republicans and with a certain number of conservatives. but he has set it up in a way where there's all these enforcement conditions that could put him in a position where there could be a backlash if agrees to legislation that doesn't really meet that or the outcome of the legislation doesn't satisfy that. at the same time, it puts him in a way where, if the goevnegotias on the bill move to the left, he can bail out and say, well, i tried to play ball, but they didn't want to agree to the concessions. >> i think it's fascinating you have a cuban american just elected also, ted cruz, coming out very conservative. i think there will be a clash. it will happen at a different level. just think back what happened with the congress. we didn't change that p. we did win some seats, the democrats, but it's still very conservative. that's really where the game will end up. >> on the house side. >> on the house side, absolutely. >> can anything get through that house that is going to -- you're on the hill a lot, right?
i know you've been in meetings with different members, different staffs. this is fine if you get a senate deal that can get 60 votes and you have the president sign on. but that house -- >> i think we can't -- we can't pretend it's not going to be a hard fight and it's going to be like hell to try to get anything moved through that house. but there's now also a group in the house working and meeting and talking about comprehensive immigration reform. what i feel there is it's a new environment. really like everyone wants to be a player in this game except for the lamar smiths of the world. even people who may otherwise not be talking about immigration reform, it's what everyone wants to be a part of at this moment. >> meaning they -- this is a fascinating part of legislative psychology. if you think a bill is going to pass, right? it's a foregone conclusion the bill is going to pass, you want to get in there and get the best you can out of it. the train is leaving the station. everyone runs on board. it's a real tipping point, right? if the momentum or an aura of inevitability falls away and now it looks like you can actually kill the thing, right?
then everyone's incentives and calculations shift. >> it's not just -- the details are not just in the policy. it's also in the strategy. the house is talking about maybe releasing something. what happens if the house releases something before the senate has moved and drafted its bill? does it move everything in the senate to the right? i think people have to be very careful about not just the policy and the details but also the way the strategy, both in the republican and democratic parties are moving. >> we've seen movement with the s.t.e.m. related issues, you want to get green cards and citizenship a pathway for s.t.e.m. >> science, technology, engineering, and math. >> and you have the agriculture industry there. so you're seeing different convergence going on anyway. that's kind of a backup plan. my fear is at the enof the day they're going to cut away and be able to push forward on those maybe two or three issues, which won't be satisfactory to a lot of people, including folks on our side of the aisle, a lot of
folks. >> where are texas republicans on this? ted cruz, your new senator, he's not sounded particularly amenable to this. >> texas republicans are where ted cruz is. look, this is an issue -- >> someone wrote something hilarious the other way, after john cornyn, the other senator, voted against john kerry. he said, i now discovered that ted cruz has two votes, not just one. jon cornyn is so worried about a vote to the right, that whatever vote ted cruz makes jon cornyn is going to run to the floor and make the opposite one. >> i think this in the end will be a negotiated resolution. everybody staked out their positions, and now the devil's in the details. we're going to see. >> but the question is it's not in the details if they can kill it. my point is i covered mccain-kennedy. i covered mccain and kennedy. the switchboards. there was this tremendous mobilizing power that was numbers usa and a bunch of
different anti-immigration groups, restrictionist groups, hammering this thing six hours a day, and congressional switchboards just lit up. and they really scared the pants off legislators. i want to ask why that's not going to happen this time? what has changed? right after this break. ♪ using robotics and mobile technology, verizon innovators have made it possible for teachers to teach, and for a kid... nathan. tadpole. ... to feel like a kid again. because the world's biggest challenges deserve even bigger solutions. powerful answers. verizon.
my question is why the armies of talk radio won't rise up and inundate the switchboard on capitol hill and kill this the way they killed mccain-kennedy? >> the last election changed everything and texas. texas is a state that will soon be in play. maybe not now, maybe '20, '25, thereafter. if we lose texas, we lose the presidency for the remainder of my lifetime and my children's lifetime. so the demographics are changing. we've got to go back to the bush numbers in terms of getting hispanic votes. we don't want to see that. so that empowers rubio and other
republicans, the business republicans -- like i said earlier, there are two republican parties. one is more business centric, and the other is movement conservatives, grass root tea party people. the business conservatives will be on board with the immigration bill, but you will see push-back from movement conservatives. >> i think it's more than just demographics and elections. i really do think there is a movement now, whereas in there wasn't before. in 2010 when we lost the d.r.e.a.m. act, when we lost -- we fell five votes short of passing that. we lost that. we lost the legislation. >> five votes short of overcoming the filibuster, we should note. >> with you we won. we won the collins. we won the faxing. we have never won that before. >> in terms of the metrics of how many calls were coming in. you won that. >> there's a movement on social media. dreamers are able to change, to stop deportation using social media. we're able to mobilize a
tremendous amount of people and quickly. >> has the restrictionist infrastructure demobilized, is it less funded? is it less activated? is it just that essentially the base of the republican party do what their elites say, which is you've got to go along with this or lose elections? >> i do think the grass roots shares a lot of the same concerns. >> about electoral viability? >> that the party elite has about electoral viability? i think that does impact things in certain ways. i also think that the past six years of somewhat stepped up enforcement, having reduced illegal immigrant in-flows has -- and reduced the numbers present in the country, has made it recede somewhat as an issue, that the salients of the issues wasn't as high as it was in 2006/2007 to a lot of republican voters. >> where do you think the president is on this? i think this is one of those things where, like we said at the beginning, you can imagine a
wide spectrum of results inside the details of that bill. it's going to come down to who is really in there fighting and saying across this line, no more. >> right. >> and i'm curious where you think the president is going to be on that. >> i think he's going to -- i think we've yet to see everything come about. he's going to wait. he's going to see what proposals come about. he said he's going to take action. he'll put forward his own piece of legislation. meanwhile, he's going to be talking about the country with these issues, helping to mobilize people. to me the game is outside the bubble of washington. it really is. the dreamers very important. business people who get it that you need to have in-flows, but you also have to have a good stabilized economy and a work force. i agreed with the previous discussion we had on the panel regarding training. you have 11 million people here. people should be trained up for the high tech jobs. if you need people to come in to do ag and maybe other service sector jobs, we ought to be able to make sure there's enforcement, that these people
don't drive down pagwages, that just before they come in from mexico or latin america or asia, those wages are going to be sub -- they're going to create another cast of workers. that can't be done. those are our principles that the president and most others would like to see that there's fairness and justice. this is a moral issue for many people. we didn't even say moral all the time we've been on the panel. it's a moral issue. >> but he did. i was proud to hear the president talk about this is not politics or policy. we're talking about real people. we're talking about our families. what the president has to do is to set some markers. >> we're going to see where those markers are. i want to give you this. people should keep their eye on chuck schumer, who's taken a very big lead on this, and there's a lot of folks around this in the immigration reform movement who are a little worried about what exactly he's willing to give away, whether he just wants a deal that he can sign off on or whether he's going to fight for those markers. so people should keep their eye very closely attuned to senator chuck schumer from my home state of new york about what kind of role he's playing in these
in that time there've been some good days. and some difficult ones. but, through it all, we've persevered, supporting some of the biggest ideas in modern history. so why should our anniversary matter to you? because for 200 years, we've been helping ideas move from ambition to achievement. and the next great idea could be yours. ♪
so, what do we know now that we didn't know last week? we now know that democratic senator and new chairman of the foreign relations committee robert menendez will be investigated regarding free flight s th flights that he took with a political donor in 2010 to the dominican republic and a donor who owes the irs $11 million and whose offices were raided this week. and on wednesday, the senator said he reimbursed the donor for the flights and denies all of the allegations about prostitution, and we are waiting for the senator's full side of the story. we now know that after five years of official denials women of ethiopia decent in israel has
been given birth control shots. we know that the wirth rate rate of women from ethiopia declined by 50%. and we know that the money received by allied financial and other agencies ally and gm and aig have put pay packages from the t.a.r.p. money of more than $5 million even though they violated the guidelines of the bailout legislation. gm has yet to pay back $21.5 billion in taxpayer funds and a ally still owns $11.4 billion and we know that after seven seasons and four emmys we have to say good night to the rural juror. "30 rock" the show about a show was ridiculous and absurd and
daring an funny always came first and fay and company took on the issues of corporate culture and it was not preachy, but jam packed with social sat ire. we don't know what tina fey's path is going to be, but we know that her path of comedy is well worn, and she helped to pave it forward. it was ground breaking not because it was created by a woman, but so damn smart that it was packed with so many jokes that you had to rewind to catch them all. sadly, we will all have to work on our night chews alone. let's start with hilda solis. >> i think that the debate is going to be healthy and i like what i heard today in terms of the different perspectives and how people can look at where we have come from and where to go, and hopefully the public will be more engaged.
i think that the dreamers and the folks out in america whether it is rural america or the inner city to come together and figure out where to go as a country in immigration. can we do it humane ly and do i in a way to help the economy and all work together to improve what we have here in this beautiful country which is about freedom, social justice, humanity and morality, and the moral issue for sus immigration reform. it is needed to be done and it is broken. >> jim? >> we learned that the u.s. senate is not the last office that ted cruz will run for. his performance in the hearings for chuck hagel and his confrontation with hagel and hoping that filibuster would hope. >> that was with demagoguery like none i have seen. >> well, from the texas perspective, we think that ted cruz is doing a fine job and holding the feet to the fire. and pivoting to the immigration issue, what i have learned is
that i have a sense that both sides want to resolve it and put it behind them, and hopefully we can resolve it once and for all. >> lorella? >> we learned that there is appetite in washington to work on immigration reform and mainly that the dreamers and others in the communities will hold the democrats and the president accountable. he talked about the lgbt families and include them in the bill, but the house did not. we know there is a house hearing on immigration tuesday. >> and the first time the house will take a bite at this. it will be interesting. i thank former secretary hilda sol solis, and aaron pena and lorella praeli, and thank you for getting "up." tomorrow morning we will have nobel prize winning winner joseph stiglitz.